About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
said use all 10 fingers, i'll buy you breakfast. checkpoint, security, two. i survived the situation, got on the plane. the point is this, that what's in my head i've never had to apologize for. first thought wrong properly filtered was some kind of rehabilitation or education or part of the c.o. or the p.d. or the d.a., helps first thought wrong become next right thing. you can do it. i can teach the incarcerated population what to want because they always get what they wanted. they wanted more, they got more. they got it, they got it. they want someday, they left with none. they wanted her or him, they got that. i can tell them what to want now. pass first thought wrong, what to want. they do the right work, i can show them how to keep it this time. my boy's safe all day. it's not because of me. it's because of efforts like this. [applause] >> as our panelists take the stage and get seated, let me introduce our discussion. earlier this year, california state senator mark leno introduced legislation that would revise the penalty for simple drug possession under the state law, making
. as psychologists, we study abnormal behavior. anita shows distribution, most of us in here. you get anybody out here who is externalizing or anyone out here who is internalizing, as a psychologist, we try to bring them back in here so they're more healthy. that's what we study. when you're having problems in your life or any other area, if we can do something, talking to you versus talk therapy or medicine that might help you, what we're trying to do is get everybody back here so we're just kind of more balanced. with respect to the traumatic brain injuries and other types of things, that's much simpler for people to kind of understand that you had a concussive event or you had a t.b.i., traumatic brain injury, that's caused problems. we should be developing ways of helping to manage and treat those problems just like we do individuals who have the other types of problems. >> let me just add one thing there, which is it's a good question, but it highlights one of the challenges of introducing neuroscience today in the courtroom. at kent showed you some of his slides and mentioned during his tal
avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there is a request from the sponsor and supervisor to continue to december 13th, 2012. and that's all i have. >> okay. is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner antonini. >> i am present. [laughter] >> and i would like to move continuance of item 1, item 2, item 3, and item -- those specified in item 15 to december 13th. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> a
. >> okay. >> shall i proceed in >> yes, go ahead. >> thank you. for allowing us to present our point of view regarding the permit relating to the espresso subito department order 180199. i am jay walsh president of the 122nd street corporation and speaking for the association. recently my wife asked me why we are responding to the same matter that we had addressed in march my reply was that we can't appeal every case, but in this instance, the approval based on this information or on the current legislation has been approved with no apparent verification of the real facts, like for like, the density of the businesses in the area, and the 300-foot radius clause and we want to know what bathroom access, will provide. and we are not aware that adequate notice or any such notice had been provided to affected businesses and business owners in the 300 foot radius. our program is the same as presented in the march hearing, for many years, at least 6 businesses and brick and mortar businesses offered espresso coffee in that radius of 84, second street which is the address in question. an mff
to these new locations he is in the process of permitting a second truck, if it comes through he will use it on the old location. >> he would use his existing truck alternating between the two locations if the second one comes through he will use it at the original site. >> mr. hwang? >> good evening, commissioners, once again. the departments procedures as it relates to mobile food has always been fairly transparent. through our director's order. it is posted on the website for the general public to review. there is in our process a notification requirement by mail to all merchants and businesses within 300 feet of the proposed location as i have repeated several times to the members of this board. we also are required under the law to also provide notification if a merchant is working after hours, specifically. and in certain cases check with the san francisco police department to ensure that these facilities are appropriate. in this case, we believe that we are follow our procedures correctly and processed the permit accordingly. and also this specific decision was also a measured resp
and this is in our meetings where we used criteria of the 75 -- it has a 75' buffer, but that is from the center of the restaurant or the food establishment address, which is how we came up with the 50'. so just to kind of take a look at the density and then the second one is the citywide view. so just to make sure sort of under some of the clarifications in terms of distinctions the proximity to a restaurant and like food is not something that dpw gets into looking at until it's contested and as supervisor wiener said that is one of the considerations that they would make in the final determination. the distinction that is proposed before you this 50' buffer, it's an automatic no-go. it's an automatic no-go at the counter, unless you are able to get the approval of the restaurant in that proximity. so i just wanted to make sure that that distinction of saying that it's going from 300' to 50' is not going from 300' to 50'. 50' is the starting sort of consideration and so if there are restaurants next to restaurants next to restaurants that are within that 1500' -- i mean that 50', that 50' g
operating under the worst economic conditions known to us after the great depression. by over subsidizing food trucks, the city is attempting to can bolize the existing food establishments. that is not what free enterprise stands for. >> the principals of free enterprise that our nation is built upon do not allow blai tant emotion of one side of society at the cost of the other. it is designed to permit an individual to flourish in business with minimal government intervention. over here, the city is fully involved in pitching one side against the other. my question is, as a city of san francisco willing to breach the basic standards of free enterprise and fair play? >> the city has not conducted any economic survey to the state. to assess the impact that these are likely to have on existing businesses and we are talking about the people's livelihoods to be impacted. and in fact, the applicant, nor any city official can stand here and state that such a facility is not going to impact any existing business at all. and if so, why are we all standing here. please consider these matters, real
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)